I know at least a dozen of players making a living at this game and the common trait is they make very few bets. Some of them know a 0.1% of what me and you know about the game, yet they are long term winners.
Mathematically this move is sound. Since the game remains EV-, the probability to be ahead of something will be higher when betting very few hands, say that the best move is to wager everything only one time.
If in this precise instant every bac player in the world will wager Banker, casinos will lose money as B>P even though Banker is payed less than 1:1.
After this hypothetical hand, casinos will win money no matter what.
Obviously if casinos will lose money, players will get something of it.

And altogether obvious is the fact that the more we stay and play the better we are liked by casinos.

Ask the casinos if they would like to fade ten $20.000 wagers made on ten different occasions or if they'd like more ten $20k hands made on the same session.
Mathematically it doesn't change their expectation. In practical terms this simple different approach means a lot.

More on that later.

as. 

Quote from: Albalaha on September 17, 2019, 04:35:18 AM
A working formula makes me safe during the worst possible and to recover later and not pushing too much in the worst like 30/100.

I believe you, yet imo the problem lies in the word "later". How much later?

In my blog I've presented an "unbeatable progression", meaning that it can't be overcome by the worst successions in the world (ok, almost). Still without a proper bet selection, a player utilizing such progression could easily stay in the negative zone for a long time.

That's not a conceptual problem, of course, but a practical problem as the vast majority of players want to win or breaking even at least per every session played.

And this is just the main reason why players go at home broke.

as. 
 

Nope, at least when playing at baccarat.

Since any shoe is the product of a definite card distribution, we do not know if previous very bad patterns will be followed by favourable patterns. Not in the same shoe, not in the next ones.

Sayed that, you are absolutely correct that we should investigate the fluctuations in term of sigma values.
But such fluctuations must be restricted in the correct terms, again it's the bet selection which helps.

I'm 100% certain that no one bac pit would be happy to have me, you, Sputnik and Alrelax playing together.

Probably Al is the best player to transform the "bad" in "good", you are a master to control the deviations, me and Sputnik will do the rest. :-)

as. 

Dr B. Kaiser magistrally stated in his book that
people who make their living at numbers are always more comfortable dealing with the high likelihood of something's not happening than the slim chance of a rare event's occurring

In some sense, rarity works for casinos as give the players the illusion to beat the game (bac players like to bet toward long homogenous situations) and common events work for serious and patient players unless rarity come out.

Therefore in order to consistently win we must restrict the rarity appearance trying to take advantage of the most likely situations.

And only an accurate card distribution study could help us to define better the issue. 

as. 

Hi dear Lungyeh.

Imo and according to my studies there are only two kind of favourable card distributions for the players:

- an astounding homogeneously rank distribution or

- a heavy key cards distribution shifting to one side.

Notice that I'm not talking about real outcomes as itsr (in the short run) they could take whimsical shapes.
Thus I'm focusing about ranks and key cards.
Everything falling in between will act in house's favor itlr, no matter if we are lucky, geniuses or whatever.

Now, it's virtually impossible to physically put ranks and key cards for long not belonging to one of those two categories, a thing that only a software can do.

Fortunately at the time I'm writing CSM and manually shuffled shoes can't refrain to produce favourable card distributions, especially CSM as when the same deck is "biased" it remains biased for at least 2-3 more shoes.
Of course that doesn't mean that the same deck is going to produce the same outcomes' lines.

At high stakes rooms where each deck is fresh, house will get a higher advantage over the players and it's not a coincidence that some serious players want to bet very few hands or not at all if things are not fitting their plan.

We can bet everything we have on our name that it's quite easy to spot the players who make a living at this game: they perfectly adhere to the black jack rule where no mid-entry is allowed as they'll join the table from the start.

as. 

Hi Dilon, thanks! 

Let's take the shoe as a succession of fresh decks, the card distribution is A,2,3,4,5....K
We'll deal the cards in a baccarat game.

First hand: Player A, 3  Banker 2,4  drawing card is 5. Player wins by 9 over B 6.
Second hand: Player 6, 8  Banker 7, 9.  drawing card is a 10. Banker wins with a 6.
Third hand: Player J, K  Banker Q, A. Drawing cards are 2 and 3. Banker wins with 4 vs P 2.
Fourth hand: Player 4, 6  Banker 5, 7. drawing cards are 8 and 9. Player wins with 8 vs 1.
Fifth hand: Player 10, Q banker J, K. Drawing cards are A and 2. Banker wins with 2 vs 1.
Sixth hand: Player 3,5 Banker 4,6. Player wins by a natural 8.
Seventh hand: 7, 9 Banker 8, 10  Banker wins with a natural 8.
Eight hand: Player J, K Banker Q-A  Drawing cards are 2 and 3. Banker wins with 4 vs 2.
After this hand the process repeats infinitely up to the end of the shoe.

Let's see what happened in those eight hands:

P
B
B
P
B
P
B
B


We see that only hand #2 produced an asymmetrical hand and such probability is way larger than expected (12.5% vs the real 8.4%).

The increasing rank order of the deck of course helps the side acting last (Banker) but it's more interesting to notice what an homogeneous rank distribution (13/13) will act in terms of outcomes even though the cards are not featuring a perfect increasing order.

as. 

   







             

Itlr key cards are dealt asymmetrically by any means.
Itlr drawing hands and standing/naturals points are dealt asymmetrically by any means.

Itlr any four card point higher than the opposite four card point is going to win by a nearly 2:1 ratio and, of course, is dealt asymmetrically.

Itlr any third card helping or not the Player side is dealt asymmetrically and the same is true about the sixth card. 

Besides the original increasing order made manually, per any deck different ranks are dealt asymmetrically.

Baccarat is a game of constant asymmetricity working at different values.

as.







 



 

Instead of thinking about outcomes we should focus about cards distribution.
Do not forget that a large portion of hands will be resolved by the first four cards dealt alternatively.
For example, if we could bet about getting at least a natural point on either side this game wouldn't exist as a large part of hands will be determined right after the first cards are dealt.
We do not know which side will be kissed by such natural but we know that more than 1/3 of the time this event will happen.
Notice that when a natural will land, the game is a perfect coin flip proposition, meaning that there's no point to bet Banker. That is we're betting a zero negative edge game either on Player bets and on Banker bets at EZ tables.

Of course naturals are more likely when formed by a ten-8 or ten-9 combination than by the other card possibilities and 8s and 9s favor Banker only when dealt as fifth card (asym hands).
Therefore when we think that the next four cards will contain at least one of the possible 64 8s/9s, we know that it's more likely to get a natural.

Now, each of the all possible 64 cards rank will be distributed asymmetrically and the more such asymmetricity will be present better is the probability to assess their impact over the next outcomes.
And aces, 2s or 3s, for example, will involve a larger less impact than other key cards because they are going to produce more drawing hands than standing hands.
No way itlr a drawing hand will be favorite to win, especially at Player side.
But as players we are forced to work into an infinite succession of finite distributions.

After long tests made on live shoes compared to pc generated shoes, we've found that the more the key ranks are asymmetrically distributed, better are the chances to guess which side will be favorite to win on very few spots.

It's like as a given pattern should be more due than expected and obviously such thing cannot happen per every shoe dealt.

Thus the main problem is concentrated to spot the shoes which are really playable and neglect those which aren't.
And the fortune of casinos is that 99.99% of bac players want to guess every shoe dealt no fkng matter what.

as.

In few days I'll try to explain how a possible unrandomness could be the key to beat this game.

If you think that baccarat could be beaten you are reading the right pages.

as.

Interesting topic.

Somewhere I've read that classifying the last 5 numbers repeating or not could be a wise way to detect how things are working on that wheel.
I agree.

At a single zero wheel, the probability to hit the last 5 numbers (or any 5 numbers) is 0.135, obviously this value tend to be true only itlr.
For practical purposes we could consider separately a full cycle of 37 spins then  assessing such probability each time. 

Differently to man actioned wheels, softwares working at automated wheels tend to produce less randomized outcomes as there's less bouncing, less number of ball and rotor velocities and a constant point of ball's launch.

Of course there is some bet selection to be made along with the use of a strong progression helped by the fact that the payment will be huge (32:1).

There are several IB machines where around any cycle the probability to hit one of those 5 last numbers is 100%.

as.

Randomness definition is a quite complicated issue, many think that flipping a fair coin is a valid example of randomness but it isn't.

The real problem gamblers have to face is to ascertain whether the outcomes are simple products of a random unbeatable generation or if they are affected in some way by unrandom features.
   
Of course and that's where  the problem stands, itlr different unrandom generations tend to converge forming random results. So we can easily think that a long succession of different baccarat results will fall no distant from the expected values.
And this conclusion is totally correct.

Moreover, it's a total waste of time to think to beat a so called perfect random software production (baccarat buster, etc) or, even worse, to test a given method into a succession of live outcomes coming out from different sources.

For obvious reasons, a possible unrandomness should be always assessed in a situation where a large number of constant parameters is fulfilled. 
The final decisive role is played by key cards distribution and nothing else.
And since any card counting tool isn't going to give us any help, we must put in action several r.w. that must reflect such distribution, even though being approximated.

In conclusion, baccarat is beatable if we can estimate at a decent value that the shoe we're playing is affected by some unrandomness, otherwise we are losing money.

as.

Only people featuring two neurons but no neurotrasmitter could think to beat a EV- random game (Junketamine King is the first on the list).
Especially if such people keep thinking that every single baccarat decision will be a random 50/50 proposition.

That's why one of the best tools we could use is to put in action several random walks working by different parameters, this in order to really ascertain if the outcomes' distribution is really random or not.

It's mathematicallly certain that only unrandom distributions working into a EV- game can be beaten itlr.

And it's funny to see that some (rare) brilliant players have realized that empirically just by long term observations.

as.

Quote from: Albalaha on July 31, 2019, 09:50:38 AM
@Asymbacguy,
              If you can play with any logic that can be told and made to understand to others too, it can be tested, programmed and played mechanically too. If you play with any gifted capacity of precognition that you are unable to transfer to others, it can neither be transferred nor anybody else can imitate ever. So, let us all know in which way, you "think" it is beatable?

The logic is pretty simple but quite complicated to be put in practice.
And unfortunately I can't read randomness, the only one capable to do that is gizmotron.

No one mechanical system can work into an EV- game unless is capable to pass all the "unfortunate" situations that could come along after thousands and thousands of trials.
Nonetheless we know for sure that a large part of different random walks will be winners at the end of the shoe.
We do not know how much they will be winners but they surely will.

On the other end and for obvious reasons, on average a larger random walks part is going to lose no matter what.

Have to run. later.

as.

I know that eminent experts as M. Shakleford, E. Jacobsen, J. May are laughing at me when I'm presenting those ideas,  but I can assure you by 1 trillion certainty that this fkng game can be beat on B/P hands with an astounding positive edge.

Simply put, they do not know what to look for. 

as.

One of the best tool to confirm or deny that this game is really beatable is to put on one side a real live bettor and on the other one a mechanical player who places the bets in a perfect randomly fashion (for example wagering B if the previous first card hand was red or P if it was black).
Of course the first player will get a slight less disadvantage if he happen to bet only Banker side but we know this isn't the strategy to win itlr. So we assume that even the first player will proportionally place his bets 50/50.   

Mathematicians, experts, etc, will say there will be no difference in the final outcomes of both players. That means that both players build two different random walks getting the same long term disadvantage.

Therefore the only way to suppose a possible edge of player #1 is to study the hands distribution, trying to grasp hints of the previous outcomes in order to guess future hands by a better than 50/50 ratio.
In a word, player #1 tries to partially transform a random game into a unrandom game, a luxury denied to player #2 who must "passively" place his bets.

Now say that besides his own plan, the first player can take into account what happens to player #2.
Considering each shoe, most of the times player #2 outcomes will flow with relatively low pattern deviations, in few situations player #2 will find himself into a strong positive or negative territory.



as.